Good Behaviour Contract Sample Declaration Consent: Fill & Download for Free

1. IntroductionUniversal healthcare (UHC), sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage or universal care, usually refers to a healthcare system, which provides healthcare and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country. It is organised around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a universal health system as one where ‘all people can use the promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services they need, of sufficient quality to be effective, while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship’. In Ireland, the definition used in current policy for the introduction of UHC does not mention the issue of affordability but instead places the emphasis on access based on clinical need [2]. This is contrary to a key underlying tenet of UHC which is risk protection. Health payments are a heavy financial burden for millions around the world. Financial risk protection is concerned with safeguarding people against the financial hardship associated with paying for health services. The concept of financial risk protection, or conversely the absence of a risk of financial hardship, has been the focus of interest to economists and researchers for many years, and measuring the ability of a health system to protect people against the financial hardship associated with paying for health services has become an important issue for research and analysis across countries at all income levels [3]. It is unclear why health policy in Ireland has chosen to adopt a definition of UHC which is silent on the issue of affordability.The WHO has advocated UHC as the best means of improving global health. However, achieving UHC is not without challenges: from defining the goal of UHC to identifying the most appropriate methods to achieve it. The idea of UHC can be seen in the 1948 WHO Constitution [4] of which Ireland is a signatory. The concept of UHC was first introduced in Ireland through the 1948 Health Act [5]. UHC is also embedded in the 1978 Alma-Ata declaration that contains a number of important principles in relation to health. It specifies that all people regardless of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition be entitled to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right. In 2005 [6], 2011 [7] and 2013 [1] UHC has become the focus of various WHO campaigns as the importance and benefits of universal coverage become ever more apparent.Over recent years funding for the health service in Ireland has declined, amidst the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s, while the demands for care and patient expectations have increased [8], [9]. The health system managed ‘to do more with less’ from 2008 to 2012, achieved mostly by transferring the cost of care onto people and by significant resource cuts [10]. This is evident in reduced home care hours, increased wait-times, expensive agency staffing and accentuated inequities of access for patients within the health system. Alongside this there was a growing discourse in society to have a health system that is accountable, effective, efficient and capable of responding to the emerging and on-going needs of the public. This has been illustrated through debates on UHC internationally [11] and in Ireland [2].The structure of the Irish healthcare system has a number of unusual features [12] and is commonly referred to as a ‘two-tiered’ system. ‘Two-tier’ refers to the fact that people who can pay privately or have private health insurance (PHI) can get a diagnosis quicker and can secure faster hospital treatment, even in public hospitals, because they can afford the monthly premiums [13]. About 46% of the population have PHI [14]. Those who cannot afford PHI must often face long waiting lists for acute care [10], for example longer waiting times for minor operations and diagnostics such as CT scans [15]. About two fifths of the population have medical cards under the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme, which are means tested and mostly allocated on the basis of income. These cards enable people on low or no income to access general practice (GP) and hospital care without charge and medicines at a low cost. Healthcare financing relies predominantly on general taxation, which accounted for an estimated 69 per cent of total financing in 2015, with out-of –pocket payments by individuals and PHI contributing an estimated 13 per cent each [16]. Ireland is unusual amongst its European neighbours in not having universal access to primary care [17]. A recent analysis conducted by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies found that the highest formal payments in any primary care system exist in Ireland, where patients without a medical card (e.g. when income rises above a specified threshold) pay between €45 and €65 for each GP visit, with no reimbursement [17]. According to recent OECD data on 34 countries, Ireland is in the bottom third for both out-of-pocket expenditure and also unmet medical needs particularly in relation to medical examinations [18], whereby people indicated that they need medical treatment in the previous 12 months but did not receive it [18]. Cross sectional analysis of health seeking behaviour within primary care in Ireland revealed that those who had to pay out-of-pocket payments to see a GP were more likely to put off going to the doctor than those with a GMS card [19]. Similarly analysis on the impact of the introduction of copayments on prescriptions reported a reduction in medication adherence [20]. An antidote to this inequitable two-tiered system is UHC. Possible options for the implementation of UHC, including funding and restructuring as well as dealing with possible positive and negative outcomes are outlined in the Slaintecare report [2]. Details of the complicated nature of the Irish health system are explained in a recent analyses [21].In more recent years Ireland has recommitted its intention to introduce UHC by looking to change the underlying funding model to an insurance based system – universal health insurance (UHI). The 2011-16 Programme for Government states, “under this system there will be no discrimination between patients on the grounds of income or insurance status” [22]. In the final days of the previous Government, UHI became seriously delayed and abandoned in the run up to the 2016 General Election, with the Minister for Health indicating on foot of the publication of costings for UHI that the multi-payer model of private competing insurance companies is not viable stating it was ‘not acceptable, either now or any time in the future’[23]. More recently the Government has formed a cross-party committee, the primary role of which is to ‘establish a universal single tier service where patients are treated on the basis of health need rather than on ability to pay’ [24]. This committee, called the Oireachtas Committee on the Future of Healthcare, published its report entitled Slaintecare in May 2017 outlining a ten year plan for the introduction of UHC in Ireland [2].The issue around universalisation has therefore been an ongoing background debate for decades and periodically comes to the fore when the standing Government seeks to institute reforms. Despite these commitments by Ireland at international and national level, the two-tiered system still exists. This begs the question as to why?The legitimacy and sustainability of any major policy decision increasingly depends on how well it reflects the underlying values of the public. Experts and stakeholders provide essential technical input but their role is distinct from that of the citizen and cannot replace it. It is increasingly understood that citizens should be a stakeholder in framing health policy decisions [25] and it is recognised that citizens’ values should define the boundaries of action in healthcare in any democracy[26], [27], [28], [29]. This is particularly the case for UHC as patients and the public have been identified as key enablers for the implementation of any universal programme [30]. According to the OECD the general public bring new ideas and experiences to the decision-making process; encourage policy makers to think more carefully about the objectives of health services and to be more open and explicit about the choices being made [31].The call for public participation also suggests a shift in political philosophy about who has the democratic right to make healthcare decisions. The WHO have also used the language of rights when arguing that: ‘The people have the right and duty to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care’ [32]. Members of the general public want to be involved in decision-making at the national level [33] and they overwhelmingly want their preferences to inform priority-setting decisions in healthcare [34].Public input into healthcare decision-making, at least in theory, is clearly advocated in Ireland. The importance of patient involvement has been acknowledged in numerous policy documents such as ‘A Vision for Change: Report of the expert group on mental health policy’ [35], ‘The National Health Strategy: Quality and fairness – a health system for you’[36], the Madden Report [37] and most recently in ‘Healthy Ireland – A Framework for Improved Health and Wellbeing 2013–2025 [38], as well as in numerous Health Service Executive (HSE) national service plans [39], [40], [41]. In Ireland researcher-administered questionnaires with 738 patients and family members attending outpatient services reported that 86.2% were supportive of greater patient participation in national level healthcare design, delivery and policy [42].The key prevailing issue relating to the Irish health system is how to end the inequitable two-tiered health system that exists. There has been one formal assessment of the general public’s views and opinions on universalisation in Ireland, however, this study included a convenience sample of patients attending for treatment in a primary care setting[43]. Beyond the media headlines little is actually known about the general public’s views on universal healthcare. We sought to identify what demographic factors and opinions influence the support of the general public for the introduction of universal healthcare (UHC) in Ireland.2. Materials and methods2.1. DesignA cross-sectional survey on the views and opinions of the general public on the introduction of UHC in Ireland.2.2. SamplingA sample of 972 participants were recruited. This provided a 3% margin of error with a 95% confidence level and total population of 4,757,976 based on the 2016 National Census [44].Random sampling was employed with random digit dialling of 85% mobile numbers and 15% landline numbers. This ensured listed and non-listed numbers have the same probability of being contacted. To ensure a representative sample soft quotas for age, gender, location, and social class were monitored. The data was weighted at analysis stage. Weightings were based on data from the 2011 Census and the Joint National Listenership Research (JNLR). The JNLR includes a sample of over 16,000 respondents aged over 15 conducted annually over 50 weeks of the year [45]. This was used alongside Census data to keep weightings as up to date as possible.2.3. ProceduresData collection took place over a two-week period in December 2016. A market research company who specialise in healthcare research were contracted to conduct questionnaires over the phone as part of an omnibus poll. The research team provided the data collectors with definitions for all key terms used in the questionnaire and meetings took place to ensure in depth understanding of the topic and questionnaire. All data collectors were provided with a full day of training, a briefing on the project and 10–15% of interviewer calls were monitored for quality control.The questionnaire was anonymous and researcher-administered over the phone. Consent was implied in completing the questionnaire.Ethical approval was provided by the School of Medicine Level 1 Research Ethics Committee in Trinity College Dublin (reference 20160208).2.4. MeasuresThe questionnaire was developed based on a literature review with standardised questions employed where possible. For example, Question 3b, ‘The government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reducing taxes’, was based on work by the Think-tank for Action on Social Change (TASC) which asked about investing in public services in general [46]. A definition of UHC based on the WHO definition was read out to participants after question one (‘I feel well informed about universal healthcare’) was answered. The definition provided was ‘“Universal Healthcare” is that all people have access to the health services they need (prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care) free at the point of access.’ (See Supplementary File A: Questionnaire). Further explanation was provided as required throughout the questionnaire after question one was answered. The questionnaire was piloted with 384 members of the general public in two locations in Dublin, Ireland with contrasting levels of deprivation in a face-to-face researcher-administered format. The pilot data was not included in the current paper as the data were collected through different mediums (telephone versus face-to-face) and also a convenience sample was utilised in the pilot.2.4.1. DemographicsParticipants were asked about their age, gender, where in the country they live (location) and level of education. Self reported health, level of healthcare cover, social class and knowledge of UHC were also recorded.Self-reported health (SRH)SRH was assessed by the answer to a single item ‘How is your health in general?’. There were five response categories: ‘very good, “good”, ‘fair’, ‘bad’, and ‘very bad’. This question has become a standard measure for SRH and due to its format can be compared with Irish and international data [47]. For analysis this variable was collapsed into ‘good self-rating of health’ including ‘very good’ and ‘good’ and ‘poor self-rating of health’ consisting of ‘fair’, ‘bad’ and ‘very bad’.2.4.2. Level of healthcare coverWhether the participant was eligible for the GMS scheme, had private health insurance or neither. Due to small numbers for analysis PHI and neither were collapsed together.2.4.3. Social classThe social grading classification system from The British National Readership Survey (NRS) has been well established and used since the 1960s and was employed in this study [48]. This was determined based on a series of questions about the chief income earner of the household in which the participant resides. This included questions on their employment status, type of employer, occupation, role and qualifications. Social class was divided into 5 categories; AB upper/middle class, C1 lower middle class, C2 skilled working class, DE other working class and F farmers.2.4.4. Knowledge of UHCParticipants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the following statement on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. ‘I feel well informed about universal healthcare’. Participants were asked to answer this question before being provided with the definition of UHC. Categories were collapsed down to ‘agree’ (which included ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’) and ‘ disagree/neither’ (which included ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’). The collapse of the answer categories was determined by those participants who indicated that they did not definitely ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’.2.4.5. Opinions and views on UHCParticipants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the following statements on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. ‘Having the health service as a public system is important’, ‘The government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reducing taxes’, ‘I want healthcare free at the point of access’, ‘People who can pay for healthcare should pay’, ‘I am prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of access’. During analysis categories were collapsed down to ‘agree’ (which included ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’) and ‘ disagree/neither’ (which included ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’). The collapse of the answer categories was determined by those participants who indicated that they did not definitely ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’.2.5. AnalysesA weighted logistic regression model was employed to assess the odds of participants who did not support the introduction of UHC in Ireland versus the odds of participants who did support the introduction of UHC in Ireland, taking demographic factors and opinions into account.Contingency tables were examined to ensure adequate sample size for each parameter. The final logistic regression model was selected based on the lowest Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). Interactions were checked for and none found. Tolerance and generalised variance inflation factors (GVIF) for independent variables were assessed to determine the presence of multicollinearity. All values were within acceptable limits with tolerance values lower than 1 [49] and GVIF values less than 2 [50].Results are displayed in terms of odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ORs range from 0 to infinity with 1.0 meaning no difference in odds and ORs greater than 1.0 meaning that the ratio of those who support the introduction of UHC versus those who do not support the introduction of UHC in the selected group is greater than the reference group. If the 95% CI for OR crosses 1 this indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that there is any difference between the reference and selected group when comparing those who do and do not support the introduction of UHC in Ireland.Analysis was conducted using statistical software SPSS Version 22.3. Results3.1. Response rateA total of 1102 people were invited to complete the questionnaire on UHC after random digit dialling and eligibility checks. From this 972 participants completed the questionnaire providing a response rate of 88.2% as illustrated in Fig. 1: Flowchart of participants.Download high-res image (434KB)Download full-size imageFig. 1. Flowchart of Participants.3.2. Descriptive analysesA demographic description of the sample is provided in Table 1 (non-weighted) and Table 2 (weighted). These are broken down by support for the introduction of UHC in Ireland. An overview of opinions relating to UHC in Ireland are also illustrated.Table 1. Non-weighted demographic description broken down by agreement with UHC.CovariateAgreeDisagreeNeitherTotal84687.0%656.7%616.3%972100.0%Age18–249110.823.1711.510010.325–4428033.12030.82744.332733.645–6430636.22436.92134.435136.165+16920.01929.269.819420.0Missing––––––––GenderMale45954.34467.73659.053955.5Female38745.72132.32541.043344.5Missing––––––––ProvinceDublin24328.71624.61219.727127.9Rest of Leinster22927.11929.21931.126727.5Munster23327.51726.21829.526827.6Connaght/Ulster14116.71320.01219.716617.1Missing––––––––EducationSecondary level or lowera39246.83250.01626.244044.7Third levelb44553.23250.04573.852254.3Missing––––––101.0GMS StatuscGMSd21225.11116.9711.523023.7Private health insurance46655.14467.74472.155457.0Neither16819.91015.41016.418819.3Missing––––––––Social ClassUpper middle class13816.31015.42032.816817.3Lower middle class23227.42132.31829.527127.9Skilled working class13816.3710.8813.115315.7Other working class29635.02436.91016.433034.0Farmers425.034.658.2505.1Missing––––––––Having the health service as a public system is importantAgree80595.24975.45386.990793.3Disagree/Neither414.81624.6813.1656.7Missing––––––––The government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reduce taxesAgree73186.42944.63760.779782.0Disagree/Neither11513.63655.42439.317518.0Missing––––––––I want healthcare free at the point of accessAgree73086.33146.22947.578981.2Disagree/Neither11613.73553.83252.518318.8Missing––––––––People who can pay for healthcare should payAgree56767.01523.14268.965967.8Disagree/Neither27933.05076.91931.131332.2Missing––––––––I am prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of accessAgree56666.91929.22642.661162.9Disagree/Neither28033.14670.83557.436137.1Missing––––––––I feel well informed about UHCAgree42149.82335.41118.045546.8Disagree/neither42550.24264.65082.051753.2Missing––––––––Self-reported healthPoor16920.01624.669.819119.7Good67780.04975.45590.278180.3Missing––––––––– = Not applicable.aSecondary level education includes primary school education (up to the age of 12) and secondary school education (up to the age of 18) and is equivalent to A Levels.bThird level education is any qualification above school e.g. undergraduate degree, postgraduate diploma.cParticipants could select more than one method of health cover. A total of 74 (7.6%) participants indicated having private health insurance as well as some form of a GMS card. These participants were included within the GMS category.dThe state provides a general medical services (GMS) card primarily based on income but also for other criteria such as age and other government schemes (HSE, 2015). This provides free at the point of contact access to healthcare services.Table 2. Weighted demographic description broken down by agreement with UHC.CovariateAgreeDisagreeNeitherTotal84887.5%616.3%606.2%969100.0%Age969100.018–249711.423.3711.710610.925–4432938.82236.13050.038139.345–6427232.12032.81830.031032.065+15017.71727.858.317217.8Missing––––––––Gender969100.0Male40647.93861.33355.047749.2Female44152.12438.72745.049250.8Missing––––––––Province969100.0Dublin25129.61727.41322.028129.0Rest of Leinster22726.81625.81728.826026.9Munster22927.11625.81627.226127.0Connaght/Ulster14016.51321.01322.016617.0Missing10.1Education969100.0Secondary level or lowera38646.03151.71626.743344.6Third levelb45354.02948.34473.352654.2Missing101.2GMS Statusc969100.0GMSd22426.41219.7811.924425.1Private health insurance44452.33963.94067.852354.0Neither18021.31016.41220.320220.9MissingSocial Class969100.0Upper middle class10212.0711.51525.912412.8Lower middle class23227.42032.81931.727128.0Skilled working class17720.9914.81016.719620.3Other working class28633.82236.11016.731832.8Farmers505.934.9610.0596.0Missing10.1Having the health service as a public system is important970100.0Agree80795.34775.85488.590893.6Disagree/Neither404.71524.2711.5626.4Missing––––––––The government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reduce taxes969100.0Agree73086.22947.53660.079582.0Disagree/Neither11713.83252.52440.017317.9Missing10.1I want healthcare free at the point of access969100.0Agree73887.13150.82948.379882.4Disagree/Neither10912.93049.23151.717017.5Missing10.1People who can pay for healthcare should pay970100.0Agree55965.94674.24066.764566.5Disagree/Neither28934.11625.82033.332533.5Missing––––––––I am prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of access970100.0Agree56066.12032.32744.360762.6Disagree/Neither28733.94267.73455.736337.4Missing––––––––I fell well informed about UHC969100Agree40748.12134.41118.043945.3Disagree/Neither44051.94065.65082.053054.7Missing––––––––Self-reported health970100.0Poor16919.91524.2610.019019.6Good67980.14775.85490.078080.4Missing––––––––– = Not applicable.aSecondary level education includes primary school education (up to the age of 12) and secondary school education (up to the age of 18) and is equivalent to A Levels.bThird level education is any qualification above school e.g. undergraduate degree, postgraduate diploma.cParticipants could select more than one method of health cover. A total of 65 (6.7%) participants indicated having private health insurance as well as some form of a GMS card. These participants were included within the GMS category.dThe state provides a general medical services (GMS) card primarily based on income but also for other criteria such as age and other government schemes (HSE, 2015). This provides free at the point of contact access to healthcare services.Examination of Table 1 (non-weighted) shows that females account for 44.5% (n = 433) of the sample, 33.6% (n = 327) were aged between 25 and 44, 54.3% (n = 522) had a third level qualification and 57.0% (n = 554) of participants had PHI.The introduction of UHC in Ireland was supported by 87.0% (n = 846) of participants. The majority of participants also supported the Government prioritising spending on healthcare rather than reducing taxes (82.0%; n = 797), healthcare free at the point of access (81.2%; n = 789) and that having the health system as a public service is important (93.3%; n = 907).3.3. Regression analysesThe final logistic regression model as determined by the AIC is presented in Table 3 with crude and adjusted ORs for participants who support the introduction of UHC in Ireland compared with those who do not support the introduction of UHC in Ireland (‘disagree’ or ‘neither’). The model was statistically significant and fit the data well [x2[20] = 159.712, p < 0.001; Hosmer and Lemeshow, p > 0.05]. This was the most parsimonious model with the lowest AIC.Table 3. Factors Associated With Agreeing With the Introduction of UHC in Ireland (n = 962; 99.0%).Independent variablesCrude OR95% CIAdjusted ORa95% CIAge18–24BaseBase25–440.69(0.31,1.54)0.64(0.24, 1.67)45–641.10(0.64, 1.89)0.88(0.41, 1.87)65+0.98(0.55, 1.72)0.84(0.31, 1.74)GenderMaleBaseBaseFemale1.52(1.03, 2.24)e1.10(0.70, 1.74)ProvinceDublin1.32(0.76, 2.31)2.16(1.13, 4.11)eRest of Leinster0.84(0.49, 1.43)0.78(0.42, 1.46)Munster1.05(0.62, 1.76)1.14(0.62, 2.10)Connaght/UlsterBaseBaseEducationSecondary level or lowerbBaseBaseThird levelc0.73(0.49, 1.08)0.90(0.54, 1.48)GMS StatusGMSdBaseBasePrivate health insurance/Neither0.54(0.32, 0.89)0.53(0.28, 0.99)*Social ClassUpper middle classBaseBaseLower middle class1.16(0.50, 2.72)1.57(0.59, 4.20)Skilled working class0.91(0.41, 2.01)1.52(0.62, 3.74)Other working class0.61(0.26, 1.43)1.09(0.41, 2.84)Farmers0.61(0.27, 1.35)1.18(0.46, 3.01)Having the health service as a public system is importantAgree4.31(2.45, 7.57)e1.65(0.81, 3.34)Disagree/NeitherBaseBaseThe government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reduce taxesAgree5.35(3.56, 8.04)e3.43(2.12, 5.57)eDisagree/NeitherBaseBaseI want healthcare free at the point of accessAgree6.80(4.52,10.23)e4.72(2.95, 7.54)eDisagree/NeitherBaseBasePeople who can pay for healthcare should payAgree0.82(0.54, 1.24)0.72(0.44, 1.19)Disagree/NeitherBaseBaseI am prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of accessAgree3.15(2.13, 4.67)e1.91(1.21, 3.03)eDisagree/NeitherBaseBaseI feel well informed about UHCAgree2.62(1.71, 4.02)e2.13(1.32, 3.44)eDisagree/NeitherBaseBaseSelf-reported healthPoorBaseBaseGood0.85(0.51, 1.40)1.21(0.68, 2.17)aLogistic regression- adjusting for other factors included in the model.bSecondary level education includes primary school education (up to the age of 12) and secondary school education (up to the age of 18) and is equivalent to A Levels.cThird level education is any qualification above school e.g. undergraduate degree, postgraduate diploma.dThe state provides a general medical services (GMS) card to households on low income. This provides free at the point of contact access to healthcare services.eStatistically significant.Statistically significant factors associated with support for UHC included location, GMS status and attitudinal related factors (e.g., ‘The government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reduce taxes’, ‘I want healthcare free at the point of access’, ‘I am prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of access’ and ‘I feel well informed about UHC’).Adjusting for the effects of other factors, the odds of participants living in Dublin agreeing with the introduction of UHC were greater than those living in Connacht or Ulster (OR 2.16, 95% CI (1.13, 4.11)). The odds for those who do not have a GMS card agreeing with the introduction of UHC were lower than the odds of those who have a GMS card (OR 0.53, 95% CI (0.29, 0.99)). The odds for those who agreed that the Government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reducing taxes were greater than the odds of those who indicated ‘disagree’ or ‘neither’ (OR 3.43, 95% CI (2.12, 5.57)). The odds of participants who agreed that they wanted healthcare free at the point of access were greater than the odds of those who did not want healthcare free at the point of access (OR 4.72, 95% CI (2.95, 7.54)). The odds of those prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of access were greater than the odds of those who were not prepared to pay higher taxes for healthcare free at the point of access (OR 1.91, 95% CI (1.21, 3.03)). The odds of those who felt well informed about UHC agreeing with the introduction of UHC were greater than the odds of those who did not feel well informed about UHC (OR 2.13, 95% CI (1.32, 3.44)).4. DiscussionGeneral public support for the introduction of UHC is influenced by demographic factors and related attitudinal factors. The introduction of UHC in Ireland was supported by 87.0% (n = 846) of participants. Of those that supported the introduction of UHC, this was influenced by factors including location, GMS status, opinions on the government prioritising spending on healthcare, healthcare being free at the point of access, taxes being increased to provide care free at the point of access and feeling informed about UHC.Differences in context and reform proposals generate differences in the interests of stakeholders and their positioning on reform making it difficult to make cross-national comparisons [30]. However, in the absence of general population information on this topic it would appear that the high level of support for UHC reported in this study is reflective of support for UHC demonstrated internationally. Web-based surveys with 2241 medical students revealed that 86.8% were supportive of UHC in Ontario and 51.1% in California [51]. A similar sentiment was reported from postal surveys with 1675 physicians in the United States with 89% agreeing that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay [52].When asked if Government should prioritise spending on healthcare rather than reducing income taxes 82.0% (n = 797) of participants agreed with this statement. The 2015 Behaviour and Attitudes Survey asked a similar question but focused on public services in general rather than just health services. A total of 69% of participants agreed with focusing on spending on public services [46]. This is lower than the support for prioritising spending on healthcare perhaps illustrating the importance placed on healthcare and the support for improving services in this area. This is of importance for health policy leaders and makers, particularly in Ireland, as recent examples of protest and demonstrations from the public have been proven to be effective. For example, public outcry against the removal of the GMS card for those over the age of 70, and the attempted removal of GMS cards to very sick children resulted in a rolling back of these policies during the economic recession.Higher socioeconomic status was the principal determining factor for the willingness of members of the general public to support participating in national health insurance in a cross sectional study in St Vincent and the Grenadines [53]. An examination of individual level dynamics in healthcare attitudes toward UHC between 2008 and 2010 in the United States revealed that respondents did not take a position towards UHC reflective of their income [54]. Similarly in the current study social class was not a significant factor influencing support for the introduction of UHC.The current two-tier system has been shown to be ineffective for all groups, GMS and private, with GMS patients facing long waiting times and private patients high insurance premiums and out of pocket payments for both groups [55]. Despite the system not working for any group GMS status influenced participants’ opinions on the introduction of UHC with those with GMS cards slightly more likely to support the introduction of UHC. This is to be expected as those who have PHI nor neither PHI nor a GMS card could be the ones who experience the most change from the introduction of UHC, and may anticipate that not all change will be positive. For example, the creation of a single tier service may mean that those currently with PHI could experience longer waiting times for hospital treatment under UHC than they currently do, but lower out of pocket payments for primary care services.The current research had a number of strengths and limitations. This is a nationally representative sample with 972 participants (response rate of 88%) providing the views and opinions of the general public on UHC at a time when one of the question marks over the implementation of a plan for healthcare in Ireland centres around public opinion. The questionnaire included questions that have been previously used and extensive piloting was conducted. Data collectors were trained and the data collection process was monitored for quality. However, the sample was not weighted in terms of GMS status with the proportion of GMS holders accounting for 23.7% (n = 230) of the sample versus 36% of the general population. Focusing on level of education 54.3% (n = 522) of the sample had a third level education or higher. This is comparison to 34% of the general population aged between 15 and 64 [56]. Additionally, caution must be taken when interpreting results as the number of respondents who selected the ‘disagree’ or ‘neither’ category for the introduction of UHC was substantially lower that the number of respondents whom agreed with the introduction of UHC.5. ConclusionThis paper is relevant and timely for policy leaders both in Ireland and internationally. In Ireland the Slaintecare Report [2] has been published outlining a ten year plan for the introduction of UHC in Ireland and implementation remaining the key question now. Internationally, these findings are of interest as countries with UHC, such as the United Kingdom, are facing difficulties maintaining health services in the public realm with ongoing debate on the privatisation of the NHS [57] and other countries, such as the United States, are debating universal elements for their healthcare system. The current study provides a template that can be used to explore public opinions of UHC in other countries. There is a high level of support for the introduction of UHC in Ireland, which is influenced by demographic, and related attitudinal factors. Patients and the general public have been acknowledged as having a key role to play in all areas of healthcare. This research provides timely information from a representative sample for the ongoing debate on the future of healthcare in Ireland. Future research should explore what people want to obtain from the introduction of UHC and what they are willing to contribute to ensure that the voice of patients and the public is heard at all stages of developments. It would be interesting for this to be explored from a number of different stakeholder groups such as clinicians.

Marital Rape and the Indian legal scenarioPriyanka Rath seeks to bring out the laws regarding rape in India while concentrating on the position of marital rape and its recognition as an offence by the system and the attitude of the society and the judiciary towards marital rape.Marital Raperefers to unwanted intercourse by a man with his wife obtained by force, threat of force, or physical violence, or when she is unable to give consent. Marital rape could be by the use of force only, a battering rape or a sadistic/obsessive rape. It is a non-consensual act of violent perversion by a husband against the wife where she is physically and sexually abused.Approximations have quoted that every 6 hours; a young married woman is burnt or beaten to death, or driven to suicide from emotional abuse by her husband. The UN Population Fund states that more than 2/3rds of married women in India, aged between 15 to 49 have been beaten, raped or forced to provide sex. In 2005, 6787 cases were recorded of women murdered by their husbands or their husbands’ families. 56% of Indian women believed occasional wife-beating to be justified.Historically, “Raptus”, the generic term of rape was to imply violent theft, applied to both property and person. It was synonymous with abduction and a woman’s abduction or sexual molestation, was merely the theft of a woman against the consent of her guardian or those with legal power over her. The harm, ironically, was treated as a wrong against her father or husband, women being wholly owned subsidiaries.The marital rape exemption can be traced to statements by Sir Mathew Hale, Chief Justice in England, during the 1600s. He wrote, “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband, whom she cannot retract.”Not surprisingly, thus, married women were never the subject of rape laws. Laws bestowed an absolute immunity on the husband in respect of his wife, solely on the basis of the marital relation. The revolution started with women activists in America raising their voices in the 1970s for elimination of marital rape exemption clause and extension of guarantee of equal protection to women.In the present day, studies indicate that between 10 and 14% of married women are raped by their husbands: the incidents of marital rape soars to 1/3rd to ½ among clinical samples of battered women. Sexual assault by one’s spouse accounts for approximately 25% of rapes committed. Women who became prime targets for marital rape are those who attempt to flee. Criminal charges of sexual assault may be triggered by other acts, which may include genital contact with the mouth or anus or the insertion of objects into the vagina or the anus, all without the consent of the victim. It is a conscious process of intimidation and assertion of the superiority of men over women.Advancing well into the timeline, marital rape is not an offence in India. Despite amendments, law commissions and new legislations, one of the most humiliating and debilitating acts is not an offence in India. A look at the options a woman has to protect herself in a marriage, tells us that the legislations have been either non-existent or obscure and everything has just depended on the interpretation by Courts.Section 375, the provision of rape in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has echoing very archaic sentiments, mentioned as its exception clause- “Sexual intercourse by man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape.” Section 376 of IPC provides punishment for rape. According to the section, the rapist should be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to life or for a term extending up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife, and is not under 12 years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years with fine or with both.This section in dealing with sexual assault, in a very narrow purview lays down that, an offence of rape within marital bonds stands only if the wife be less than 12 years of age, if she be between 12 to 16 years, an offence is committed, however, less serious, attracting milder punishment. Once, the age crosses 16, there is no legal protection accorded to the wife, in direct contravention of human rights regulations.How can the same law provide for the legal age of consent for marriage to be 18 while protecting form sexual abuse, only those up to the age of 16? Beyond the age of 16, there is no remedy the woman has.The wife’s role has traditionally been understood as submissive, docile and that of a homemaker. Sex has been treated as obligatory in a marriage and also taboo. Atleast the discussion openly of it, hence, the awareness remains dismal. Economic independence, a dream for many Indian women still is an undeniably important factor for being heard and respected. With the women being fed the bitter medicine of being “good wives”, to quietly serve and not wash dirty linen in public, even counseling remains inaccessible.Legislators use results of research studies as an excuse against making marital rape an offence, which indicates that many survivors of marital rape, report flash back, sexual dysfunction, emotional pain, even years out of the violence and worse, they sometimes continue living with the abuser. For these reasons, even the latest report of the Law Commission has preferred to adhere to its earlier opinion of non-recognition of “rape within the bonds of marriage” as such a provision may amount top excessive interference wit the marital relationship.A marriage is a bond of trust and that of affection. A husband exercising sexual superiority, by getting it on demand and through any means possible, is not part of the institution. Surprisingly, this is not, as yet, in any law book in India.The very definition of rape (section 375 of IPC) demands change. The narrow definition has been criticized by Indian and international women’s and children organizations, who insist that including oral sex, sodomy and penetration by foreign objects within the meaning of rape would not have been inconsistent with nay constitutional provisions, natural justice or equity. Even international law now says that rape may be accepted a s the “sexual penetration, not just penal penetration, but also threatening, forceful, coercive use of force against the victim, or the penetration by any object, however slight.” Article 2 of the Declaration of the Elimination of Violence against Women includes marital rape explicitly in the definition of violence against women. Emphasis on these provisions is not meant to tantalize, but to give the victim and not the criminal, the benefit of doubt.Marital rape is illegal in 18 American States, 3 Australian States, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Rape in any form is an act of utter humiliation, degradation and violation rather than an outdated concept of penile/vaginal penetration. Restricting an understanding of rape reaffirms the view that rapists treat rape as sex and not violence and hence, condone such behaviour.The importance of consent for every individual decision cannot be over emphasized. A woman can protect her right to life and liberty, but not her body, within her marriage, which is just ironical. Women so far have had recourse only to section 498-A of the IPC, dealing with cruelty, to protect themselves against “perverse sexual conduct by the husband”. But, where is the standard of measure or interpretation for the courts, of ‘perversion’ or ‘unnatural’, the definitions within intimate spousal relations? Is excessive demand for sex perverse? Isn’t consent a sine qua non? Is marriage a license to rape? There is no answer, because the judiciary and the legislature have been silent.The 172nd Law Commission report had made the following recommendations for substantial change in the law with regard to rape.‘Rape’ should be replaced by the term ‘sexual assault’.‘Sexual intercourse as contained in section 375 of IPC should include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal, penile/oral, finger/vaginal, finger/anal and object/vaginal.In the light of Sakshi v. Union of India and Others [2004 (5) SCC 518], ‘sexual assault on any part of the body should be construed as rape.Rape laws should be made gender neutral as custodial rape of young boys has been neglected by law.A new offence, namely section 376E with the title ‘unlawful sexual conduct’ should be created.Section 509 of the IPC was also sought to be amended, providing higher punishment where the offence set out in the said section is committed with sexual intent.Marital rape: explanation (2) of section 375 of IPC should be deleted. Forced sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife should be treated equally as an offence just as any physical violence by a husband against the wife is treated as an offence. On the same reasoning, section 376 A was to be deleted.Under the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), when alleged that a victim consented to the sexual act and it is denied, the court shall presume it to be so.The much awaited Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DVA) has also been a disappointment. It has provided civil remedies to what the provision of cruelty already gave criminal remedies, while keeping the status of the matter of marital rape in continuing disregard. Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, amongst other things in the definition of domestic violence, has included any act causing harm, injury, anything endangering health, life, etc., … mental, physical, or sexual.It condones sexual abuse in a domestic relationship of marriage or a live-in, only if it is life threatening or grievously hurtful. It is not about the freedom of decision of a woman’s wants. It is about the fundamental design of the marital institution that despite being married, she retains and individual status, where she doesn’t need to concede to every physical overture even though it is only be her husband. Honour and dignity remains with an individual, irrespective of marital status.Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act prevents communication during marriage from being disclosed in court except when one married partner is being persecuted for n offence against the other. Since, marital rape is not an offence, the evidence is inadmissible, although relevant, unless it is a prosecution for battery, or some related physical or mental abuse under the provision of cruelty. Setting out to prove the offence of marital rape in court, combining the provisions of the DVA and IPC will be a nearly impossible task.The trouble is, it has been accepted that a marital relationship is practically sacrosanct. Rather than, making the wife worship the husband’s every whim, especially sexual, it is supposed to thrive n mutual respect and trust. It is much more traumatic being a victim of rape by someone known, a family member, and worse to have to cohabit with him. How can the law ignore such a huge violation of a fundamental right of freedom of any married woman, the right to her body, to protect her from any abuse?As a final piece of argument to show the pressing need for protection of woman, here are some effects a rape victim may have to live with,-Physical injuries to vaginal and anal areas, lacerations, bruising.Anxiety, shock, depression and suicidal thoughts.Gynecological effects including miscarriage, stillbirths, bladder infections, STDs and infertility.Long drawn symptoms like insomnia, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, and negative self image.Marriage does not thrive on sex and the fear of frivolous litigation should not stop protection from being offered to those caught in abusive traps, where they are denigrated to the status of chattel. Apart form judicial awakening; we primarily require generation of awareness. Men are the perpetrators of this crime. ‘Educating boys and men to view women as valuable partners in life, in the development of society and the attainment of peace are just as important as taking legal steps protect women’s human rights’, says the UN. Men have the social, economic, moral, political, religious and social responsibility to combat all forms of gender discrimination.In a country rife with misconceptions of rape, deeply ingrained cultural and religious stereotypes, and changing social values, globalization has to fast alter the letter of law.India Law Journal

Oh please who do you think is behind that fearmongering? For measles lol"Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will. the biggest job of a health department has always been, and always will be, to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways: first by education; second, by fright; and third, by pressure.We dislike very much to mention fright and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education, because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process.During the months of March and April we tried education, and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fright and pressure, and vaccinated 223,000 people.Our educational program consisted of warnings in the daily papers, small-pox posters on the streets, in stores and factories, special small-pox bulletins for all large places of employment, and special letters to all large employers from the health department and the association of commerce, calling their attention to a threatening small-pox epidemic. The radio was also made use of in this work.As the conditions grew worse, we felt justified in using stronger measures. We had some good pictures taken of patients suffering from the confluent type of small-pox, and had posters, showing these pictures, distributed all over the city. The moving picture theatres cooperated at this time by issuing warnings on the screen.The newspapers published daily the names and addresses of people dying from small-pox. A second letter was sent to all factories, stores, and other places of business, informing them of a rapidly approaching small-pox epidemic, and advising them to have their employees vaccinated immediately, and thereby prevent a serious financial loss to the city, which might occur if a real epidemic developed.At this time the department was vaccinating thousands of people daily, but there were still too many who could neither be educated nor frightened into vaccination. Cases and deaths each amounted to a considerable number, and we now felt justified in using all of the power a health officer has, and if that was not enough, to get more.We sent out a third letter to all employers requesting them to have all of their employees vaccinated and at the same time informing them that if a small-pox case developed in their place of employment in the future we would consider their place of business a menace to the health of the community and very likely place the entire establishment under quarantine until it could be cleaned up and made safe for the public. Putting this responsibility on the employer drove in thousands of anti-vaccinationists who could better afford to get vaccinated than lose their jobs. All employees co-operated very bravely with this last request, although in a few instances it was necessary to lay off old, reliable and valuable employees."-----Declaration by Dr. John P. Koehler, Commissioner of Health of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in an article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, November, 1925."Dr. med Martin Hirte writes on page 20 of his book 'Vaccination--Pro and Contra': "To create fear among parents to strengthen their motivation to vaccinate is an important part of the publicity used to promote vaccinations. A whole branch of research is examining the question: 'What level of fear needs to be created to appear as convincing as possible?'"---Buchwald md (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p104)"There is no doubt, however, that the risk has been, for some years, vastly exaggerated, seemingly to prepare the public mind to accept the new (diptheria) vaccine."---In the Medical Officer, January 25th, 1936, DR. E. A. UNDERWOOD, M.O.H. for Shoreditch, declared: "Fear is the greatest of all propagandists. During the early part of the present year (1935) diphtheria was extremely prevalent in many parts of the country, and reports in the press diffused knowledge of the dangers of the disease" (not, be it noted, of the dangers of inoculation). "The result of this knowledge, which was stimulated by the personal efforts of members of the health department staff, was a very marked increase in the number of children who attended for immunisation." (p. 38; my italics.)“A top spokesman from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last April told doctors that emphasizing "alarm" and "dire outcomes" from the flu increased demand for flu shots, according to an outline of his presentation reviewed by United Press International.That official -- outlining for doctors what he called a "recipe" for increasing demand -- said that "heightened concern, anxiety and worry" drove demand for flu shots......The recipe includes "framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as 'very severe,' 'more severe than last or past years,' 'deadly')."..............A vaccine safety advocate said the CDC's rhetoric does not match the risk from flu. "We have known for several years that the CDC is employing behaviorists and communications specialists to instill fear and anxiety in the public about infectious diseases in order to promote mass vaccination.”“I always know when it's flu season. First, the media begins its usual role as hyterical government press secretary, uncritically trumpeting the same cooked numbers about the coming flu epidemic. ... NBC's Today Show (10/6/04), warn that the flu kills about 36,000 people every year in the United States. .....It's a crock, a lie, and a sham; a conspiracy to generate fear and stampede people to use a vaccine of questionable effectiveness to the benefit of pro-immunization bureaucrats, and big pharma. Sounds harsh, but follow the math and the money. When the major manufacturers of flu vaccine get together with the CDC in a closed door summit with the sole purpose of figuring out how to stick 185 million doses of a questionable vaccine into a population in which less than 1,000 people a year die, what should we call it? Yes, Virginia, it is a conspiracy. Luckily the conspirators are foolish enough to believe that their website is safely hidden amidst all the chaff of the Internet, or else, are so brazen in their contempt for the general population that they think we can't do a little math and conclude "The vaccine doesn't work, and the flu is a flim-flam!" The CDC should concentrate on finding ways to lower the spread, working alternatives to vaccines, and ways to minimizing the severity of the flu, rather than pumping out fake numbers, creating an aura of fear and hysteria, and shilling for profits to huge pharma companies. “"What Jenner discovered, though hardly original in its general principle, was that it pays far better to scare 100 per cent of the fools in the world—the vast majority—into buying vaccine than it does to treat the small minority who really get smallpox and who cannot afford to pay anything. It was indeed a very great discovery—worth thousands of millions. That is why this kind of blackmail is still kept going."--Dr Hadwin"Finally, Dr Nicholson described the campaign as "a gift horse" for the two drug companies, which still had vaccines in stock intended for use with the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)......The stocks of the MR vaccine were still current, but had to be used by autumn 1994, just when the campaign took place. "The campaign provided a very lucky break for the two vaccine suppliers “Mmr is SatanicWe only see measles as a problem due to Allopath fearmongering to sell vaccination"It is well known that measles is an important development milestone in the life and maturing processes in children. Why would anybody want to stop or delay the maturation processes of children and of their immune systems?"--Viera Scheibner"Chronic tendencies, such as recurring respiratory infections, often heal after measles. Chronic health problems disappear, such as psoriasis or chronic kidney problems. The children’s hospital in Basle (Switzerland) used to get children with chronic kidney infections to contract measles intentionally in order to heal them, up until the 1960s . Children susceptible to infections are healthier and stronger after contracting measles; the need for medical treatment clearly decreases . Children in the Third World countries are less likely to contract malaria and parasites after measles . The risk to suffer breast cancer decreases to less than half. MS is also much lower in people who had measles. Hay fever is more rare in children who have older siblings and had measles than in those who were vaccinated against measles . A large African study showed that children who have had measles are 50% less at risk from allergies than those vaccinated,. Furthermore it is shown that experiencing measles protects from diseases of the immune system, skin diseases as well as degenerative cartilage, bone and tumourous diseases."---"In Eastern medical philosophy, poisons are believed to accumulate in the baby's body during life in the womb. After birth, the body at some time attempts to rid itself of the poisons. This leads to the many childhood diseases with eruptive rashes, and in particular, measles. Since the 16th century, it has been realized in Eastern medicine that measles is connected with infection. However the basic function of the disease is the same: the infection is regarded as the necessary agent for poisons to "come out". So, although the dangers of measles are clear, the illness is seen as a step towards overall health.Measles as a transition. The impact of measles can be best understood by observing changes in your child's behaviour, attention and attitude before and after the illness. Often, he or she is restless and irritable for some weeks or months before developing measles as though a storm is brewing. The family and other people around the child often greet the appearance of measles with relief, because at last the cause of the problem is evident. As the rash develops, and the disease goes into its second stage, the child becomes more confused and irrational. This is the most dangerous phase, and it represents the transition point.At this time, the body turns the corner as the poison leaves and the immune system gains the upper hand against the invaders. Then, as the crisis passes and the fever subsides, the child's awareness returns -- but with a different outlook. The negative and irritable behaviour has gone, and he or she is emotionally delicate and open to new influences. The child sees ordinary and familiar things in life for the first time, but through new eyes, as though he or she has had a form of ritual experience.On the physical level, the poisons accumulated during life the womb have been expelled. At the higher emotional and mental levels, negative forces such as greed and selfishness have also been expelled. So a child who has measles is afterwards less self-centered and more openhearted, and often more able to express his or her individuality. The personality becomes rounder and fuller, and more joyful and contented, as a step towards maturity and adulthood.""Children who are fed too frequently or fed improperly, and who are troubled with constipation and the passing of undigested food with the bowel movements, are made susceptible not only to diphtheria, but also to scarlet fever, measles, whooping-cough, etc. Indeed, it can be proved that normal, healthy children--children who have bowels that are regular, and who are not troubled with intestinal indigestion--cannot be made to take any of these diseases."--Tilden 1921"Measles is the manner in which a child's body throws off toxemia. When children are cared for improperly, they become toxemic, and their skin eliminates toxin to a greater degree than does the skin of grown people."--"It is my belief that measles heads the list of the diseases of childhood which are the result of starch and sugar toxemia."-(Food is Your Best Medicine)."I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given".--Dr Trall 1860.Febrile infectious childhood diseases (FICDs) are associated with a lower cancer risk in adulthood.A Swiss study found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers — genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others — if they contracted measles (odds ratio, OR = 0.45), rubella (OR = 0.38) or chickenpox (OR = 0.62) earlier in life:Febrile infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls.Chicken pox and reduced rates of brain cancer in adulthood:History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in lifeMumps and reduced rates of ovarian cancer:Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic associationMeasles and reduced risk of lymphomasMeasles - Disease Information Statement (DIS) - Physicians for Informed ConsentAnd on the contrary....both the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and chicken pox vaccine contain human DNA which has been linked to childhood cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, autoimmune diseases and gender identify confusion....Marcella Piper-TerryFebrile infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls.#vaccines #measles #cancer #wedid #crazymothers #hearthiswell - Fermented FarmacyAs to treatment it was always safe in healthy children eg my whole school of 110 kids got measles I was first and spent nice few days in sickbay just for isolationAnd safe with all kids under proper medical care even 100 years agoNo one before the vax fearmongering started ever feared measlesThat’s homeopathy and naturopathyWhile nutritional medicine proved vit c made it safe 70 years ago eg Klenner in 1950s"But the ordinary child who gets measles, even the child with a moderate degree of malnutrition and so forth, if you give intravenous vitamin C supplementary to other forms of treatment, the response very often, not always, is absolutely dramatic If you get them early enough. You must get them early. If you delay, and they have been unconscious let us say for days, or a day or two, you cannot reverse it. The damage is permanent. If you get them early, give them this treatment and there is no problem. And that makes me very, very angry, because they talk about "Oh, we must stop these kids getting measles" and so forth. Well, all right, I can fix them if they get measles."---dr k(International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)Vitamin a"Knowing that measles often leads to vitamin A loss, we had begun to wonder if Africa's high death rates from measles might also be connected with vitamin A deficiency. To test this, children hospitalized with measles in Tanzania were given vitamin A capsules. The **measles death rate fell by half**. It was at this point that we discovered, to our astonishment, that a similar experiment had been conducted 50 years earlier in a London hospital - with the same results: medicine too has doors it did not enter, paths it did not take."--Sommer“If a source of vitamin A, such as butter, cod-liver oil or egg yolk formed a part of the diet, infective lesions were never seen in the rats and the addition of these substances to the deficient diets, unless the animals were too severely infected, generally resulted in rapid improvement and ultimate cure.”---Mellanby"There is a "cure" for measles. It is called vitamin A... cod-liver oil. As early as 1932 doctors used cod-liver oil to reduce hospital mortality by 58%, but then antibiotics became the treatment of fashion, *(Clin. Infect. Dis., Sept. 1994, pg 493) *and vitamin A was ignored until 1980. A 1993 study showed that **72% of hospitalised measles cases in America are vitamin A deficient**, and the worse the deficiency the worse the complications and higher the death rate. *(Pediatric Nursing, Sept./Oct. 96.) *Yet doctors and hospitals in New Zealand do not use vitamin A."As to the Allopaths solution to measles it can only be described as satanic"AT LEAST 26 families claim their children died as a result of the controversial measles, mumps and rubella jab, the Sunday Express can reveal. In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its 1979 Vaccine Damage Payment Act. In others, post mortem reports concluded the jab was the most likely cause of death. Despite this, the Department of Health insists no child has ever died from MMR."MMR diseases (Lawyer list many years ago, UK). Legal aid was withdrawn, see MMR legal fundingAutism (287), Crohn’s disease and other serious chronic stomach problems (136), Epilepsy (132), Other forms of brain damage (induding meningitis, cerebral palsy, encephalopathy, encephalitis etc.) (77), Hearing and vision problems (81), Arthritis (50), Behavioural and learning problems (in older children) (110), Chronic fatigue syndrome (41), Diabetes (15), Guillain-Barre syndrome (9), Idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (and other purpuras) (6), Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) (3), Wegener’s Granulamatosis (2), Leukaemia (1), Multiple sclerosis (1), Death (18).how they make the Measles vaccine, start at 5:00. "I found a CDC paper called '*Isolation of the Measles virus*.' If we think a patient might have Measles get some fluid from that patient...and put in fridge. Next, get a marmoset monkey, kill it, take it's cells and put cells in cell culture because they are 10,000 times more responsive to measles than our human cells. The cell culture isn't ready yet to grow measles virus. Next thing is to make the monkey cells cancerous by exposing to radiation. Next give those monkey cells Epstein Barr virus, which is a horrific disease. Next, add a toxin to the cell culture that is so dangerous the advice is to wear rubber gloves, don't let human skin touch it. The CDC says at this point the cells are starting to fall off the sides of the vessel, in other words they are poisoned, they have cancer and EBV and they are falling over, they are ill. Give them 2 days to recover and add nutrients. Now get sample out of fridge and add to these diseased and cancerous cells. Watch with microscope for 2 days. If after this time 50% of the cells are distorted then you have an isolate of measles virus and you are instucted to put in fridge and keep to be used as vaccine. At no point is measles virus seen, at no point is the measles virus proved to cause the illness in the cells. We know they are poisoned, we know they have been given cancer & Epstein Barr syndrome. That is now ready to be made into a vaccine to be put into our kids. This noxious mixture is the basis that can be used in vaccines." Janine Roberts on Vaccines (Janine Roberts on Vaccines)The five stages of vaccine awareness1. Vaccines are safe and effective2. Vaccines are unsafe but effective3. Vaccines do more harm than good4. Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous5. Vaccines are silent weapons for human farming: killing, sterilising, mind control, and disease creation for fear and income. Vaccine advocates are psychopaths or useful idiots“Vaccination is child abuse and a crime against humanity.” - Dr Buchwald MD''Vaccination is not disease prevention - it's a particularly nasty form of organised crime in that it manipulates parents' protective instincts to get them to submit their child into getting poisoned for profit under the guise of disease prevention.'' ~ Erwin Alber."The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.....There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."-Dr Robert Mendelsohn (received his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Chicago in 1951. For 12 years he was an instructor at Northwest University Medical College, and an additional 12 years served as Associtae Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine. He was also President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Comittee of the State of Illinois.)"Parents who allow their children to be vaccinated should be charged with child abuse and sent to prison for a very long time."---Dr Vernon Coleman MB (Coleman's Laws.)"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition. Here the role of the potato...deserves special mention.....Consider carefully whether you want to let yourself or your children undergo the dangerous, controversial, ineffective and no longer necessary procedure called vaccination, because the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is **utter nonsense.**"--The Vaccination Nonsense (2004 Lectures)---**Dr. med. G. Buchwald **“I the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research (as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine.” ~ Bernard Rimland (November 15, 1928 – November 21, 2006) was an American research psychologist, writer, lecturer, and advocate for children with developmental disorders. Rimland's first book, Infantile Autism, sparked by the birth of a son who had autism, was instrumental in changing attitudes toward the disorder. Rimland founded and directed two advocacy groups: the Autism Society of America (ASA) and the Autism Research Institute."We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.......Every doctor now essentially in this country has done something as heinous as the Nazis did, unknowingly." ~ Dr Eisenstein MD“I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal wasn’t most likely the cause of autism……you couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe. It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage." ----Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on mercury toxicity.